Impact of Health Insurance, Poverty, and Comorbidities on Colorectal Cancer Screening: Insights from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

BACKGROUND: Despite national campaigns and other efforts to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, participation rates remain below targets set by expert panels. We hypothesized that availability and practice patterns of healthcare providers may contribute to this gap. METHOD: Using data of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for the years between 2000 and 2016, we extracted demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related data as well as reported experiences about barriers to care, correlating results with answers about recent participation in colorectal cancer screening. As CRC screening guidelines recommend initiation of testing at age 50, we focused on adults 50 years or older. RESULTS: We included responses of 163,564 participants for the period studied. There was a significant increase in CRC screening rates over time. Comorbidity burden, poverty, race, and ethnicity independently predicted participation in screening. Lack of insurance coverage and cost of care played an important role as reported barrier. Convenient access to care, represented by availability of appointments beyond typical business hours, and frequency of provider interactions, correlated with higher rates of screening. CONCLUSION: Our data show a positive effect of educational efforts and healthcare reform with coverage of screening. Easy and more frequent access to individual providers predicted a higher likelihood of completed screening tests. This finding could translate into more widespread implementation of screening programs, as the increasingly common virtual care delivery offers a new and convenient option to patients.

Esophageal Manometry Competency Program Improves Gastroenterology Fellow Performance in Motility Interpretation.

INTRODUCTION: Competency-based medical education (CBME) for interpretation of esophageal manometry is lacking; therefore, motility experts and instructional designers developed the esophageal manometry competency (EMC) program: a personalized, adaptive learning program for interpretation of esophageal manometry. The aim of this study was to implement EMC among Gastroenterology (GI) trainees and assess the impact of EMC on competency in manometry interpretation. METHODS: GI fellows across 14 fellowship programs were invited to complete EMC from February 2018 to October 2018. EMC includes an introductory video, baseline assessment of manometry interpretation, individualized learning pathways, and final assessment of manometry interpretation. The primary outcome was competency for interpretation in 7 individual skill sets. RESULTS: Forty-four GI trainees completed EMC. Participants completed 30 cases, each including 7 skill sets. At baseline, 4 (9%) participants achieved competency for all 7 skills compared with 24 (55%) at final assessment (P < 0.001). Competency in individual skills increased from a median of 4 skills at baseline to 7 at final assessment (P < 0.001). The greatest increase in skill competency was for diagnosis (Baseline: 11% vs Final: 68%; P < 0.001). Accuracy improved for distinguishing between 5 diagnostic groups and was highest for the Outflow obstructive motility disorder (Baseline: 49% vs Final: 76%; P < 0.001) and Normal motor function (50% vs 80%; P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: This prospective multicenter implementation study highlights that an adaptive web-based training platform is an effective tool to promote CBME. EMC completion was associated with significant improvement in identifying clinically relevant diagnoses, providing a model for integrating CBME into subspecialized areas of training.

A Nationwide Survey and Needs Assessment of Colonoscopy Quality Assurance Programs in the VA.

Variability exists in quality documentation, measurement, and reporting practices of colonoscopy screening in VA facilities, and most do not have formal performance improvement plans.

Economic evaluations of gastroesophageal reflux disease medical management.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) contributes to substantial medication use and costs worldwide. Economic evaluations provide insight into the value of healthcare, taking into account cost, quality, and benefits of particular treatments. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to systematically review the existing literature to identify economic evaluations of GERD management strategies, to assess the scientific quality of these reports, and to summarize the economic outcomes of these evaluations. METHODS: We identified economic evaluations and cost studies of GERD management strategies by searching PubMed and the UK NHS Economic Evaluation Database via the Cochrane Library. Searching was restricted to articles in English-language journals from July 2003 to July 2013. Cost-identification articles were excluded from the final analysis. RESULTS: Eighteen articles were included in the final analysis; 61 % of these met all criteria for quality reporting. Overall, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy was preferred (most effective and least costly) as empiric therapy for patients with reflux symptoms, except in patient populations with high Helicobacter pylori prevalence (>40 %). Initial empiric PPI therapy (vs. initial endoscopy stratification or H. pylori testing) is likely the most cost-effective initial strategy for patients with typical GERD symptoms. Surgery may be cost effective in patients with chronic GERD symptoms at time horizons of 3-10 years. Endoscopic anti-reflux procedures were not cost effective based on available data. CONCLUSIONS: Further economic evaluations should adhere to standard reporting measures of cost estimates and outcomes, and should attempt to account for and compare the large heterogeneity of patient phenotypes and treatment effects seen with anti-reflux therapies.

Disparities in endoscopy use for colorectal cancer screening in the United States.

It is well established that disparities exist for colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence rates and death. With screening, death from CRC may be considered a preventable occurrence. Endoscopy (flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy) is the only modality with therapeutic benefit of removal of pre-cancerous polyps. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandated that preventive screening services be covered, which includes endoscopy for colon cancer screening. Recent federal rules have eliminated cost sharing for polyp removal during screening colonoscopy in privately insured patients; however, this has not been mandated for Medicare patients. Understanding the current state of disparities in endoscopy use is important, as these policy changes will affect millions of patients. The purpose of this literature review was to summarize the known research on disparities in endoscopy use for colon cancer screening in the United States and highlight areas for future research.

A cost-efficacy decision analysis of prophylactic clip placement after endoscopic removal of large polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Delayed bleeding after lower endoscopy and polypectomy can cause significant morbidity. One strategy to reduce bleeding is to place an endoscopic clip on the polypectomy site. We used decision analysis to investigate the cost-effectiveness of routine clip placement after colon polypectomy. METHODS: Probabilities and plausible ranges were obtained from the literature, and a decision analysis was conducted by using TreeAge Pro 2011 Software. Our cost-effectiveness threshold was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The reference case was a 50-year-old patient who had a single 1.0- to 1.5-cm polyp removed during colonoscopy. We estimated postpolypectomy bleeding rates for patients receiving no medications, those with planned resumption of antiplatelet therapy (nonaspirin), or those receiving anticoagulation therapy after polypectomy. We performed several sensitivity analyses, varying the cost of a clip and hospitalization, number of clips placed, clip effectiveness in reducing postpolypectomy bleeding, reduction in patient utility days related to gastrointestinal bleeding, and probability of harm from clip placement. RESULTS: On the basis of the reference case, when patients did not receive anticoagulation therapy, clip placement was not cost-effective. However, for patients who did receive anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies, prophylactic clip placement was a cost-effective strategy. The cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic clip strategy was sensitive to the costs of clips and hospitalization, number of clips placed, and clip effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Placement of a prophylactic endoscopic clip after polypectomy appears to be a cost-effective strategy for patients who receive antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy. This approach should be studied in a controlled trial.